NZ Black Caps in a hole and show no sign of digging up

By Geoff Parkes / Expert

In June last year the New Zealand Black Caps finished off a 199 run win at Headingly, leveling a cracking series with England, 1-1.

Aside from the result, it was the manner of the performance that provided cause for optimism; here were two very good sides, evidently near the top of the tree of Test-playing nations, playing high quality cricket.

New Zealand fans, starved of success through years of false promises and limp performances, perked up, and looked forward to the home-and-away series with Australia with – if not outright confidence – certainly a high degree of optimism.

Just over a year later, reality has kicked in.

Even allowing for being on the wrong side of a couple of pivotal umpiring errors, and entering the first Test in Brisbane patently under-prepared for Test cricket, the Black Caps were exposed as being short of elite class, and lacking depth in all departments of the game.

All of this by an Australian side clearly with a fragility of its own, particularly when playing away from home.

A home series win against Sri Lanka was welcome but more or less what was expected, and two tests against Zimbabwe nothing more than contested net practice and a chance for players to ramp their averages up a few notches.

So despite nodding agreement from pundits that South Africa was a team in decline, here was a realistic opportunity, in South Africa, for the Black Caps to test themselves again. To get a proper handle if you like, on where they really sit.

On the evidence of 1.25 Test matches – enough to qualify as a series these days – the prognosis isn’t good. The Black Caps are in a hole and seem to be digging themselves deeper.

To be fair, the disappointment in Durban was less about them than the ridiculous situation of one heavy rain-shower killing off the whole Test match. Although at 14 for 2, the portents weren’t good for the batting to come in the second Test.

In winning the toss at Centurion, skipper Kane Williamson was presented with Hobson’s choice; batting first and fourth were always going to be difficult propositions, it was like choosing the best worst option.

In the end, it was a green tinge and the too recent scars of being bowled out for 45 batting first in 2013, which made Williamson’s mind up for him. But with day one ending with South Africa at 283 for 3, the Test was as good as over.

Comparisons between the bowling attacks are stark. Figures are for New Zealand, three completed innings; South Africa, two completed innings plus 12 overs. (Noting that conditions were generally bowler friendly);

Southee; 74 overs, 240 runs, 5 wickets
Boult; 70 overs, 203 runs, 5 wickets
Bracewell; 53 overs, 170 runs, 3 wickets
Wagner; 64 overs, 151 runs, 9 wickets
Santner; 25 overs, 84 runs, 3 wickets

Steyn; 42 overs, 102 runs, 10 wickets
Philander; 35 overs, 99 runs, 4 wickets
Rabada; 29 overs, 116 runs, 5 wickets
Peidt; 19 overs, 88 runs, 2 wickets

The vaunted New Zealand swing bowlers got nice movement, in the air and off the seam and in general, didn’t bowl badly. But they struggled to consistently pressure the Proteas batsmen – a recurring theme in recent times.

All three swing bowlers suffered by comparison to Wagner who, although he only bowls in the mid 130’s, has the ability to bowl a hurtful short ball. The fact that he also was able to get some swing, to complement his short-pitched attack, made him a constant threat.

The reality is that, without troubling pace, penetration and consistency, the top end of the New Zealand attack once again looks – as it did against Australia – vanilla and limited.

By contrast, Dale Steyn, apparently over the hill, looked anything but in wrecking the New Zealand top order. What impressed most however weren’t his wicket taking balls, but that there were so many other potential wicket taking balls, one after another, on the money.

It was a similar story for Vernon Philander, and same again for the impressive Kagiso Rabada, who regularly hit the bat at close to 150 kilometres per hour.

The reality for New Zealand is thus; they have a good attack, better than good when pitch and overheads conditions suit. But if they want to climb into the upper echelon of Test nations they need to find other alternatives, players capable of maintaining intense pressure on batsmen, instead of the occasional wicket taking ball.

When the best performer over the last year is a second change bowler, bowling – let’s face it – pretty ugly leg theory, then something needs to give.

For those wondering who those alternatives are, Matt Henry was the unused fast bowler on this tour, and the man who does actually have world class pace, Adam Milne, is not considered to be robust enough for Test cricket. For anyone else, write your own ticket.

In the batting, New Zealand’s regular Achilles heel, the opening partnership, once again collapsed under the weight of expectation and excellent South African bowling.

By now everyone knows the enigma that Martin Guptill has become. Averaging 43.25 in ODIs and now, after scores of 8, 0, and 7 here, averaging 29.59 from 44 Tests, he continues to torment fans; results not matching his undoubted ability.

Tom Latham’s place is more secure, despite a miserable return of 4, 0, and 4, averaging 38.85 in 22 Tests. He copped a bizarre decision from third umpire Richard Illingworth and, unlike his partner, is showing the ability to improve with experience.

Ross Taylor ran himself out to short leg – one of those brain fades he comes up with every now and then – and then received an unplayable worm-burner from Steyn that nobody could have kept out. Just one of those matches.

Williamson was customary class in the first innings, even if hampered by South Africa offering him easy singles to get him off strike as early as five wickets down. His biggest issue, ahead of the upcoming series in India, is a tender finger, that received a decent belting in both innings.

It’s still early days for Henry Nicholls, not yet appealing as a reliable Test No. 5, but who showed plenty of ticker in accumulating 36 and 76, the latter on a rapidly deteriorating pitch.

With BJ Watling batting at No. 6, this means that New Zealand have decreed Mitchell Santner to be a bowling all-rounder rather than a lower middle order batsman who bowls. India is an important opportunity for him to show that he can indeed cut it as a front line bowler at Test level.

The batsman not used in Africa is the uncapped Jeet Raval, an opener with a solid first class record. He is almost 28, and while that is late in the day to be making a Test debut, one expects that he will be given his chance in India, his place of birth.

Still off the scene are all-rounders Corey Anderson and Jimmy Neesham; quality cricketers still on the NZCC’s list of 21 contracted players, but seemingly perennially crocked.

The Black Caps may actually find India a relief after this tough little visit to South Africa. Certainly they do not have the same sub-continent phobia that Australia does, and will fancy being able to fashion some better starts at the top of the order.

But the reality is that they have only one standout world-class player in Williamson, another close to that mark in Taylor, and Watling, who measures up well against most international glove-men.

Beyond that, the side is full of good players who need conditions to be in their favour, or young players still looking to find their feet in Test cricket. Plus a handful of others who remain frustratingly inaccessible, unable to get into the right condition to play Test cricket.

The Black Caps have gone south since last year’s tour of England. Sure, they are missing Brendon McCullum’s assuredness and lower order runs. But while they are clearly trying hard, it seems that they are succeeding only in reinforcing their frailties and shortcomings.

The India Test series starts in Kanpur on September 22nd. It is a pivotal series for them; one where bowlers like Boult and Southee must prove once and for all that they are genuine, wicket taking opening bowlers, and where any number of batsmen must step up and score heavy runs, to provide Williamson with genuine support.

The Crowd Says:

2016-09-06T05:36:27+00:00

hammermarshall

Guest


as Geoff says your comments are very constructive. I have always liked Brownlie too. At 6 maybe Guppy could bat at 6 or Neesham George Worker being a lefty may learn to bat longer in India and how about Colin Munroe who does not lack confidence, if he can do a Warner and convert to all three. Sadly the cupboard seems bare after South Africa's dominance on their wickets at, genuine pace. Always an issue. Alex Milne may be ready for a learning tour. Interesting to see Simon Doull's comments on Southee being banished to 11 for his gung-ho batting attitude. Maybe a rest may help him reflect.

2016-09-03T02:21:17+00:00

Republican

Guest


....akin to Oz in ra ra

AUTHOR

2016-09-03T02:16:57+00:00

Geoff Parkes

Expert


Hi Targa Yes Williamson now joins the club of test skippers who can't seem to get DRS right. Reviewing LBW's off huge inside edges, then going gun shy on the straight ones. Frustrating isn't it? I agree with you about the home series. NZ is not a bad side by any means and they do consistently play well at home now - Australia this year being the exception. My point was that, even if they do win these upcoming home series, they are just a handful of class players down on what many of us were expecting them to be around the time of the England series last year.

AUTHOR

2016-09-03T02:09:59+00:00

Geoff Parkes

Expert


Not sure what your point is Jacko? Before these matches NZ was ranked 5th on the ICC rankings and SA 6th. With most commentary suggesting that SA was sliding further. I doubt most NZ fans expected to win - for the reason you've raised. But they would reasonably have expected a better showing.

2016-09-03T02:07:30+00:00

Targa

Guest


I agree with you about Southee, but Boult actually bowled pretty well in South Africa. In the 1st innings of the 2nd test he took 0 for 100+ but hit the low 140s, beat the bat dozens of times and would've had a couple of wickets if Williamson had decided to review. If we can get Neesham back at 6, open the bowling with Matt Henry (Sodhi for Henry in the subcontinent) and get some runs out if Raval, I'd fancy us to beat Pakistan and South Africa in NZ this summer.

2016-09-03T01:22:12+00:00

Jacko

Guest


NZ is beaten in SA, by SA. What a shock.....hang on NZ has never beaten SA in a series ever so what was the expected result here again?

2016-09-02T13:48:14+00:00

Nudge

Guest


Thanks Geoff, great article too. Shame about Brownlie he looked a real player when here in Australia. I'm assuming the Indian test squad was picked before the second South African test was played, and that's why Guptill was picked. Personally I don't think a 5th bowler is as critical in India. Spinners should be able to bowl 30 overs in the day leaving 30 between the two recognised quicks. Maybe Guptill gets a reprieve then and bats at 6. The coach should tell him to play there spinners like a one dayer, and really attack from the start. Just really like recognised bat at 6, Watling 7 and Santner 8. Watling 6 and Santner 7 just doesn't look good to me.

AUTHOR

2016-09-02T13:04:27+00:00

Geoff Parkes

Expert


Nudge, for a bloke who claims to not know much about it that's a pretty fair assessment. Agree that if they play only two med-fast bowlers, it should be Boult and Wagner. Santner and Sodhi to both play. The only problem with your team is No.6 - I don't think they're bringing Brownlie back. I agree, he looked like a test cricketer but he never quite grasped his chance, 14 tests averaging 29, and he's now 32 years old. That position is really the Anderson or Neesham slot. Both decent bats who can bowl overs as well. The Mitchell Marsh slot if you like. But they're injured so they can't be picked. So... working from what they have in the squad, they could drop Guptill down to 6. Unlikely, but they're not carrying another specialist batsman if they decide to give Raval an opportunity. I think they need the 5th bowler, so that means if it's not a rank turner they might stick with Southee. But if they think it's going to turn, what they might do is bring in the other spare bowler they have in the squad who is.... (cue laughter from Australia) Mark Craig. It's not as silly as it sounds, he wasn't going too badly before getting slaughtered in Australia and he's almost as good as a specialist batsman. Same as Brownlie, 14 tests but averaging 41 with the bat.

2016-09-02T11:57:15+00:00

Nudge

Guest


As an outsider looking in, this is what I think. I could be well off the mark. Bracewell and Guptill are a long way off test cricketers. Get rid of them for good. I rate Watling but I'd bat him 7 just to take a bit of pressure off him. I think he will score more runs at 7. They should stick with Santner, he has something, so give him a good run and see if he does. But in India play him as your specialist spinner and bat him at 8. This makes the batting a heck of a lot stronger, which in turn may make the bowling better with more runs on the board. Southee will get pasted in India so I wouldn't even pick him in the squad. Wagner is a ripper has the heart of Phar Lap and is pretty much Australia's Peter Siddle. Don't know anything about Raval but it sounds like he's next man in. Whatever happened to Brownlie? He looked a real good player a while back. Maybe this 11 for India. Latham Raval Williamson Taylor Nicholls Brownlie, or other specialist bat Watling Santner Sodhi Wagner Boult

AUTHOR

2016-09-02T06:24:48+00:00

Geoff Parkes

Expert


Yes, no doubt that it's a cause of great angst that NZ Cricket had Bond for such a short time as a player, and then as a coach. Guys like that obviously don't come around often. Interesting to see Jason Gillespie talking this week too about being relieved at not getting the England coaching job, because of all of the travel, time away from young family etc... Regardless of the money, I can understand guys not wanting to be away from home for such long stretches, watching other guys play cricket.

2016-09-02T05:46:38+00:00

2211

Guest


Geoff, I seem to recall reading that Bond left due to the travel requirements of the job, being away from a young family for long periods and the fact he could earn the same as NZCC were paying him for the year in a couple of months in the IPL. It seems crazy that he couldn't have been retained in some capacity though. Good coaching can turn mediocre players into very good performers and poor coaching can turn world beaters into also-rans.

AUTHOR

2016-09-02T04:37:18+00:00

Geoff Parkes

Expert


Good point about the strike rates from different eras. Scores are much higher now (and by definition, strike rates are higher) I guess Worker is one of the contracted players so that will give him a head start over those not contracted. But I think you're right about Latham - he's busting to play and will probably be given a shot at it.

2016-09-02T04:28:03+00:00

IceBlue

Roar Pro


I think they'll try Latham initially. I'm not convinced he's the long-term answer, but there's hardly anyone else battering down the door demanding selection. A quick scour of the Ford Trophy shows Michael Bracewell as a possible long-term option, but I suspect that the selectors will want to see another season before selecting him. George Worker also has opened for CD, and might provide a 6th bowler in the role of Grant Elliot. I'm not convinced that either is at genuine international class as of now. And of course, there is always Jesse Ryder, and everything that selection entails... Promoting a batsman (viz. Ronchi, Anderson) up the order has been tried and failed so many times, I hope they don't continue with it. Look at Neesham for a prime example of this. I doubt that a straightforward basher will be specifically searched for, since Guptill has one of the better strike rates for ODI openers. More likely, the best opener will be selected and a plan will be formed around him. We simply don't have the player depth to demand a specific role. Interesting you mention the strike rates of Williamson and Astle, I'm always slightly suprised to see Williamson near the top of that particular statistic for NZ. The other aspect I guess it represents is the steady upward climb of run rates in ODIs; a 300 chase represented a much greater challenge when Astle was playing than now.

AUTHOR

2016-09-02T03:57:42+00:00

Geoff Parkes

Expert


Yeah, what do you reckon? He's irreplaceable really. What will be interesting is whether they try to find a like for like dasher, and keep playing in the same way, or just keep Guptill for the hitting and complement him with a more conventional opener. The thing about scoring runs at a fast clip in ODI's is that it isn't all about crash and bash. With the field restrictions it's as much about getting bat on ball and finding the gaps. Williamson's strike rate is 84 versus Guptill's 86. Nathan Astle was considered a dasher when he opened but his career strike rate is 72. There was a lot of swish and miss. Some people think Ronchi might get a go, but I think he'd be the same. Rocks or diamonds.

2016-09-02T03:44:04+00:00

IceBlue

Roar Pro


Agreed. I guess we've been spoiled recently having had Vettori for so long; its easy to forget how rare a consistent spinner is for a NZ team. Watching what has been happening with the various spinners since has been really frustrating. Craig seemed to be doing well until he ran into Australia (and to be fair to him, he isn't the first to have this issue), while I'm not entirely sure that the selectors know what they want out of Santner. He seems to be stuck between the role of the team spinner and allrounder. The Indian series certainly shapes up to be revealing. Aside from the spinners, Guptil must surely be on his last chance, and I hope that Nicholls can continue to make the 5 spot his own. It would also be nice to see Henry get a crack with the new ball. Out of curiosity, how do you see the Black Caps plugging the opening gap McCullum has left in the ODI squad?

AUTHOR

2016-09-02T03:16:02+00:00

Geoff Parkes

Expert


Yes, this series is pivotal for Santner IceBlue, particularly with the ball. If he doesn't take wickets then they're no further ahead than where they are with Craig.

AUTHOR

2016-09-02T03:12:38+00:00

Geoff Parkes

Expert


Pretty fair summary there gavjoshi. Hard to argue.

2016-09-02T02:41:53+00:00

IceBlue

Roar Pro


It feels odd to be a NZ cricket supporter, watching a national team with a largely good batting attack and a fragile-looking bowling attack. Yet this is what we have. One thing I have noticed is that since the 2015 World Cup, Southee and Boult appear to have lost a good 10kph of speed. I distinctly recall Boult reaching the early to mid 140s, with Southee being not far behind. Yet against SA, they seemed around the 135 mark. During the matches against Zimbabwe, Boult seemed to struggle to reach 130. Whether this is coaching, injury, or simply aging I don't know, but it hardly bodes well. I'm glad you mentioned Santner, because I'm questioning his role in the team. He should definitely be selected in conditions where two spinners are a clear option (e.g. India, Zimbabwe), but selecting him alongside four seamers seems a weird tactic. Surely selected a specialist spinner such as Sodhi and Neesham or Anderson would make more sense. I don't think Santner offers quite enough as a spinner to be selected on these merits, and his batting is not as good as the other two allrounders (judging by first class records). Interestingly, Neesham was playing some county cricket at the same time as the Zimbabwe tour. I don't know if he was injured again during these matches.

2016-09-02T02:04:13+00:00

gavjoshi

Guest


NZ bowlers only look capable of taking 20 wickets on pitches that assist swing or seam or even spin for that matter. Once the ball is old (post 25 overs) they struggle. Boult and Southee have taken 66% of their wickets in Int cricket when the ball is 25 overs new. (1st new ball or 2nd new ball). If teams survive that spell then NZ bowlers are impotent. Boult and Southee are swing bowlers, no seam bowler in the line up. In Eng, the duke ball consistently swung so they were in the contest, in SAF or AUS (apart from pink ball grassy surface) they struggled. NZ lost two cruical tosses v Aus and were hammered in Feb. They need Milne (express pace) and Sodhi (attacking spinner) but the mindset is to have discipline over too much attack. Unless they can fix that they will continue to be exposed.

2016-09-02T00:39:36+00:00

Wasted1

Guest


Based on recent performances i would rather drop Southee. But i can't see that happening so unfortunately Bracewell will be the one that misses out.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar